Reasons to not believe in God? Discuss....

[McBell]

Logic....not dogma.

Dogma.
Why?
Because there is no logic reason to insert your favoured deity in there.

Wanting to say a dead thing made your spirit?

So quick to your safety net?

Your chemistry can be explained.

Your disbelief might have an excuse ....or reason.....
according to some of these postings .....so far.

Strawman noted.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

It seems to me that you are seeing a symetry where there is none.

Disbelief is just that. It exists. It needs no reason for being, while belief tends to.

A believer in God's existence, and particularly a believer in the Bible - about as arbitrary a belief as they come - can't reasonably demand a justification for disbelief.

Quite on the contrary, it is him who should offer reasons if the difference of opinion becomes an issue.

That is simply a consequence of the very nature of belief.




"I don't believe because the world is nothing like one linked to the Bible's God would be" is not enough?

But I am not asking you to provide justification for your disbelief, I dont expect you to prove anything, I'm asking your personal opinion as to why you disbelieve. The two are very different.

I have learnt a lot from this thread...the main thing being atheists assume a LOT. You assume that when a persons asks "why", believers expect proof of Gods non existence, or justification and that belivers are trying to convert you/convince you, your logic is wrong.

You are on about the sort of question which results in justification/proof/evidence and a conversation when one hopes to convince the other they are wrong...this is NOT what I am asking. I am simply asking for your personal opinion...everyone has a reason to why they like things (or don't), believe in things (or don't), act a certain way (or don't)...its how our brain is wired...its our personality.

What I have bolded is a reason and is enough? I don't know why you think that isnt? However you are still answering a why question with an answer...

I dont like marmite, because it tastes horrible
I dont believe in unicorns because there is no reason to
I dont believe in Islam because of a contradiction
I love horse riding, because I love horses, its exercise and it is a "freedom" feeling
I love pasta because it tastes nice
I love the colour purple because it makes me feel good
I dont like swimming in the sea, because it scares me.

Everything in life, our personal opinions will have a "reason" behind them.

"Why don't you believe in God" is a simple question! Im sorry if believers before have made you feel like that question will immediately turn into a debate where you have to provide justification, proof, evidence for that disbelief. Or where they are trying to change how you think, you are assuming the difference of opinion is an issue....this is NOT the case. I cant promise Ill agree with you opinion, but that is only fair, I have different opinions, ways of viewing things and belief?

I do NOT want to change how you think
I do NOT want to convert you
I do NOT need you to provide justification, proof, evidence for your answer

I simply wanted YOUR PERSONAL OPINION on WHY you don't believe in God

...because there is no reason to
...because there is not enough evidence
...because the world as it is doesn't resemble Gods world in the Bible
...because I don't want to believe in a God, that does/accepts the things in the bible
...because the idea of God is illogical
...because I have never seen/spoken to/witnessed a miracle etc etc
...because it doesnt make sense, that not everyone would have the same chance at salvation
...because it doesnt make sense that human would put a book together that makes it impossible to know exactly who, what, why, God is etc.

These are ALL reasons and valid reasons/answers to why someone may not believe in God. Now I may not agree with them and I may not understand where you are coming from but it doesn't change the fact that these are reasons.

IF I decide to want and better understand where you are coming from, then I may ask for more details as to why you see it that way, or why you think that etc. But again, this is not asking you to change your opinion, its giving you a chance to change mine.

Also, you are suggesting atheism is the "default", which I agree in a sense because you prove something exists, not that it doesnt. However, that doesnt explain me...I was raised in a secular family, I have mostly secular friends (I struggle with christians), yet I don't ever remember NOT believing in God.

Personally, I think it is right for both sides of an argument to explain WHY they think, see things a certain way or at least to try and explain. Note this is still not the same as proving existence, just trying to explain your view point to help people understand where you are coming from. You still might leave in general disagreement but you may understand more....for example, I can understand why you dont like those passages in the Bible, I can see the logic behind your thinking, unfortunately it doesnt work for me, as my thinking works differently to yours, but I can understand it better than you just saying "I dont need to give a reason"...its just expressing our PERSONAL VIEWS understanding that the other person may have different views.

 

[Thief]

Well played.

But the portion I don't understand about nonbelievers...
When the discussion bottoms to an axiom that all can agree to....
they continue the denial.

I prefer cause and effect.
It's rooted in science.
Can't justify an experiment of any kind without the association.
There is always a cause for any effect.
Always an effect for the cause dealt.

Then science runs all the way to the singularity......and drops the cause.
It's just there.

So I post....Spirit first.

WELL GEE!....they want evidence!

As if the reasoning.....eludes them.

As for not wanting to believe.....I suspect a deep desire to not have to deal with Something Greater.

Some posters insist I have a fear of death and want some comfort in believing.
I would say nay to that.
With an encounter of the Almighty pending.....it's the continuance that might be scary.

I suspect a fear to .....live on....after dying.

 

[Mycroft]

But I am not asking you to provide justification for your disbelief, I dont expect you to prove anything, I'm asking your personal opinion as to why you disbelieve.

Because, as a scientist, I only believe in things for which the evidence points to. Currently all of the evidence we have examined does not point to an intelligent creator and points to evolution.

I am fairly certain that any of the Gods described by the religions of man do not exist. If we look at the actions of the Christian God in christian mythology, we find someone who does not seek intelligent solutions to problems (war and violence being the apex of ignorance) and seems to seek human solutions to problems. Many of the policies and promises made by this particular God [christian] seem so bias toward men that he seems to be the product of a certain society in a certain country during a certain time, rather than a divine entiity who is beyond time and space.

Question: Why did God [christian] eradicate all human beings with a great flood?
Answer: Because God [christian] saw that "the wickedness of man was great upon the earth".

Question: Why did God [christian] send Jesus to earth?
Answer: To save mankind and forgive him of his sins.

Question: Why did God [christian] simply not send Jesus the first time instead of a flood?
Answer: [as yet unanswered satisfactorily]

Question: Why did God [christian] send Jesus at all? Why did he simply not forgive the people? Given the fact that he has the power of all creation at his disposal?
Answer: still forthcoming.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well played.

But the portion I don't understand about nonbelievers...
When the discussion bottoms to an axiom that all can agree to....
they continue the denial.

I prefer cause and effect.
It's rooted in science.

We had quite a few rounds of that already, Thief. But I will give you one more try.

As it turns out, you misunderstand the relationship between the concept of cause and effect and science entirely.

You say it is "an axiom rooted in science". Axioms, however, are a mathematical concept. They are postulates, premises, arbitrary starting points that may be used on models that hope to be useful in representing reality.

Axioms can not be rooted in science at all, because they are explicitly arbitrary. Science may use premises (not properly axioms), but when it does it has to show evidence that they correspond to reality if its conclusions are to have any worth.

So sure, whenever you attempt to use axioms or other arbitrary premises in order to prove your point, odds are that we will indeed sumarily deny them.

What else could you reasonably expect?

 

[LuisDantas]

But I am not asking you to provide justification for your disbelief,

It seems to me that you are indeed, from the very title of this thread.

If I am mistaken, then what else are you asking?

I honestly can't figure it out still.

I dont expect you to prove anything, I'm asking your personal opinion as to why you disbelieve. The two are very different.

That does not really make sense. There is no "opinion as to why" I disbelieve. I simply do. I gave you my reasons, and you say that they are not what you want to know either.

I have no idea of what else you might want to know.

I have learnt a lot from this thread...the main thing being atheists assume a LOT. You assume that when a persons asks "why", believers expect proof of Gods non existence, or justification and that belivers are trying to convert you/convince you, your logic is wrong.

Now, that is hardly fair at all.

You can't blame people for making sincere efforts at making sense of what you ask.

You are on about the sort of question which results in justification/proof/evidence and a conversation when one hopes to convince the other they are wrong...this is NOT what I am asking.

Far as I can tell, you expect to press us into some mythical place where we have to somehow admit that we not only need a reason to disbelieve in god's existence, but that we also both feel ready and willing to readily offer it to keep believers at ease while at the same time not expecting them to disbelieve themselves, nor to admit that they are pressuring us.

As expectations go, that is not what I would call reasonable, or even sane.

I am simply asking for your personal opinion...everyone has a reason to why they like things (or don't), believe in things (or don't), act a certain way (or don't)...its how our brain is wired...its our personality.

In other words, you are demanding a justification, all the while insisting that you are not. And throwing a set of random, mutually exclusive assumptions at me while at it.

Maybe you should try again from the start, because this one attempt was mangled from its very conception, sorry.

(...)

IF I decide to want and better understand where you are coming from, then I may ask for more details as to why you see it that way, or why you think that etc. But again, this is not asking you to change your opinion, its giving you a chance to change mine.

Also, you are suggesting atheism is the "default", which I agree in a sense because you prove something exists, not that it doesnt. However, that doesnt explain me...I was raised in a secular family, I have mostly secular friends (I struggle with christians), yet I don't ever remember NOT believing in God.

Are you now wanting me to speculate on possible reasons why you believe in God, then?

Personally, I think it is right for both sides of an argument to explain WHY they think, see things a certain way or at least to try and explain.

Nope.

Not when it comes to disbelief in an arbitrary concept such as that of god.

Those who do not feel a need for it are entitled to simply not use it. Justification is fully optional, and asking for it is, well, weird.

Note this is still not the same as proving existence, just trying to explain your view point to help people understand where you are coming from. You still might leave in general disagreement but you may understand more....for example, I can understand why you dont like those passages in the Bible, I can see the logic behind your thinking, unfortunately it doesnt work for me, as my thinking works differently to yours, but I can understand it better than you just saying "I dont need to give a reason"...its just expressing our PERSONAL VIEWS understanding that the other person may have different views.

You really ought to decide on whether you want reasons or personal views. You are oscillating between both, to the point that I wonder if you even perceive a difference.

 

[Thief]

We had quite a few rounds of that already, Thief. But I will give you one more try.

As it turns out, you misunderstand the relationship between the concept of cause and effect and science entirely.

You say it is "an axiom rooted in science". Axioms, however, are a mathematical concept. They are postulates, premises, arbitrary starting points that may be used on models that hope to be useful in representing reality.

Axioms can not be rooted in science at all, because they are explicitly arbitrary. Science may use premises (not properly axioms), but when it does it has to show evidence that they correspond to reality if its conclusions are to have any worth.

So sure, whenever you attempt to use axioms or other arbitrary premises in order to prove your point, odds are that we will indeed sumarily deny them.

What else could you reasonably expect?

Something more than wordplay.
A math teacher I onced studied under declared axioms to be proven ideas.
Not to be contested.

Cause and effect have been separated?

Please expand on that.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

It seems to me that you are indeed, from the very title of this thread.

If I am mistaken, then what else are you asking?

I honestly can't figure it out still.




That does not really make sense. There is no "opinion as to why" I disbelieve. I simply do. I gave you my reasons, and you say that they are not what you want to know either.

I have no idea of what else you might want to know.




Now, that is hardly fair at all.

You can't blame people for making sincere efforts at making sense of what you ask.




Far as I can tell, you expect to press us into some mythical place where we have to somehow admit that we not only need a reason to disbelieve in god's existence, but that we also both feel ready and willing to readily offer it to keep believers at ease while at the same time not expecting them to disbelieve themselves, nor to admit that they are pressuring us.

As expectations go, that is not what I would call reasonable, or even sane.




In other words, you are demanding a justification, all the while insisting that you are not. And throwing a set of random, mutually exclusive assumptions at me while at it.

Maybe you should try again from the start, because this one attempt was mangled from its very conception, sorry.






Are you now wanting me to speculate on possible reasons why you believe in God, then?




Nope.

Not when it comes to disbelief in an arbitrary concept such as that of god.

Those who do not feel a need for it are entitled to simply not use it. Justification is fully optional, and asking for it is, well, weird.




You really ought to decide on whether you want reasons or personal views. You are oscillating between both, to the point that I wonder if you even perceive a difference.

Ok let me try it this way...

Reasons in the sense you are talking, are about me changing your mind. I don't want to change your mind (I don't know where you got that idea from). I accept your reasons for YOU, I don't accept your reasons for ME. This whole thread is about ME trying to see it from YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

You actually have a Christian generally interested in if there is an argument, reasons or whatever to stop being Christian and you guys are still playing the "but we don't need to give reasons", "why aren't our reasons enough"...can't you have a general discussion without the debate, that is what I'm after really I suppose (granted I realise we are in the debate forum but that was so I could express my opinions on things).

I am not trying to change your mind
I am not trying to convert you
Your reasons are fine for YOU

However as yet, you haven't said anything that would stop ME being Christian. My mind works differently to yours, (obviously), I don't see how you expect me to accept the same "reasons" as you?

Does that make more sense?

By the way you can speculate on reasons why I believe in God, if you want.

Is it really that hard to have a general discussion of the reasons not to believe in God? In a positive way, not a you are wrong, you should convert way?

I do find the whole "I just don't believe" concept strange, when an "idea" has been given. For someone who lived in the middle of nowhere who had never heard of God, I would accept "who?". However most people in the world have heard some form of "religion" in a sense.

Take religion out the equation....a person makes a theory, hypothesis, claim. You look into the claim and make a decision, or sometimes (in the case of medications etc..) others do the research, statistical analysis and we all follow suit (sometimes). Whether people accept or don't is irrelevant, but there is still some sort of thought process there, some sort of decision on a claim which has been made.

I really don't get this "I just don't believe", you have given very valid reasons to why you don't believe in God. It's not about proving it, which is where I see the difference, you seem to put justification/evidence/proof and reasons (personal view) into one category. However in your mind, you will have underlying counterclaims/reasons/observations for dismissing the claim.

Put it another way, how do you expect me to not believe, to change my way of thinking, if all I get is "I don't need to give a reason, I just don't"....that wouldn't even stand in science.

I don't accept that medicine does xy and z (the claim) because I just don't, I don't need to give a reason, there is no thought behind my rejecting the hypothesis at all....

The way I view things there are three ways of communicating...

1) just having a general discussion, I believe x y and z...no questions, no analysing, just stating opinion
2) having a debate...where each party attempts to change the mind of the other, expecting proof of their opinion (justification, evidence etc)
3) having a in depth discussion, I believe x y and z however questions may be asked to understand where the OTHER person is coming from, NO attempts to change the mind (unless asked to) of the other, discussing the personal reasons behind each thought, idea etc. no proof is necessary.

You are in about 2, I'm on about 3.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ok let me try it this way...

Reasons in the sense you are talking, are about me changing your mind. I don't want to change your mind (I don't know where you got that idea from). I accept your reasons for YOU, I don't accept your reasons for ME. This whole thread is about ME trying to see it from YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

You actually have a Christian generally interested in if there is an argument, reasons or whatever to stop being Christian and you guys are still playing the "but we don't need to give reasons", "why aren't our reasons enough"...can't you have a general discussion without the debate, that is what I'm after really I suppose (granted I realise we are in the debate forum but that was so I could express my opinions on things).

I am not trying to change your mind
I am not trying to convert you
Your reasons are fine for YOU

However as yet, you haven't said anything that would stop ME being Christian. My mind works differently to yours, (obviously), I don't see how you expect me to accept the same "reasons" as you?

Does that make more sense?

By the way you can speculate on reasons why I believe in God, if you want.

Is it really that hard to have a general discussion of the reasons not to believe in God? In a positive way, not a you are wrong, you should convert way?

If one does not have a strong drive for sincere, honest, and rational understanding of the world, then there isn't anything which someone who does can say which would suddenly give them such a drive.

Likewise, there is nothing a person of "faith" or "belief" can say which would override my need to base my views on facts, rational arguments, and intellectual honesty.

If you're looking for some sentence that somebody can say which will fundamentally change your personality and worldview, then you're going to waiting a long time. Otherwise, if somebody could say such a thing, then your current worldview isn't really genuine to who you are anyway.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

If one does not have a strong drive for sincere, honest, and rational understanding of the world, then there isn't anything which someone who does can say which would suddenly give them such a drive.

Likewise, there is nothing a person of "faith" or "belief" can say which would override my need to base my views on facts, rational arguments, and intellectual honesty.

If you're looking for some sentence that somebody can say which will fundamentally change your personality and worldview, then you're going to waiting a long time. Otherwise, if somebody could say such a thing, then your current worldview isn't really genuine to who you are anyway.

I'm not asking anyone to change my personality or worldview? Religion isn't the bee all and end all you know! Life entails a tad more than that my personality is here to stay, however opinions can change.....you can't honestly believe that people have the same opinions throughout their life? Experience, talking to other people etc etc all have an impact.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not asking anyone to change my personality or worldview? Religion isn't the bee all and end all you know! Life entails a tad more than that my personality is here to stay, however opinions can change.....you can't honestly believe that people have the same opinions throughout their life? Experience, talking to other people etc etc all have an impact.

A worldview based on skepticism and rational understanding, and a worldview based on "faith," are separated by something far more complex and deeper than a mere difference of opinion.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

A worldview based on skepticism and rational understanding, and a worldview based on "faith," are separated by something far more complex and deeper than a mere difference of opinion.

What about a worldview which is based on all three or none at all?

I think faith is connected to opinion, unless your talking about the really bizarre religious folk who reject all scientific discoveries & rational understanding for purely "faith". I have faith, but it doesn't contradict my scientific mind...in that they are very much connected.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What about a worldview which is based on all three or none at all?

I think faith is connected to opinion, unless your talking about the really bizarre religious folk who reject all scientific discoveries & rational understanding for purely "faith". I have faith, but it doesn't contradict my scientific mind...in that they are very much connected.

The fact that your faith doesn't contradict your science mind shows that your worldview is vastly different from that of a person with a purely skeptical/rational worldview.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

The fact that your faith doesn't contradict your science mind shows that your worldview is vastly different from that of a person with a purely skeptical/rational worldview.

Well yeah I have faith....they don't....I believe in God, they don't....but that's about as far as the difference goes! Everything else I'm just as rational/skeptical as they (some would say too much).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well yeah I have faith....they don't....I believe in God, they don't....but that's about as far as the difference goes! Everything else I'm just as rational/skeptical as they (some would say too much).

Part of a skeptical/rational worldview which is meaningful is that it is consistently applied, and not compartmentalized away from, or suspended for, certain subjects or domains. The fact that you think you can hold a skeptical/rational worldview while not applying it to matters of faith, shows that you do not truely understand what a skeptical/rational worldview means or entails, which further illustrates the size of the gulf between people capable of faith, and people not capable of faith.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Part of a skeptical/rational worldview which is meaningful is that it is consistently applied, and not compartmentalized away from, or suspended for, certain subjects or domains. The fact that you think you can hold a skeptical/rational worldview while not applying it to matters of faith, shows that you do not truely understand what a skeptical/rational worldview means or entails, which further illustrates the size of the gulf between people capable of faith, and people not capable of faith.

But it's not compartmentalised by my faith?

Science/rational etc answers what, where, when, how etc

Faith answers why?

Unless you can give me some examples?

I wouldn't be here asking for reasons if I didn't apply it to my faith....I'm just yet to find anything which contradicts it. You are assuming I don't because we've come to different conclusions. But my rational mind is every part of my faith.

 

[LuisDantas]

Something more than wordplay.
A math teacher I onced studied under declared axioms to be proven ideas.
Not to be contested.

They are not to be contested, because they are assumed to be true before anything else is investigated. Without them, no work can be done in mathematics. At all.

"Proven ideas", however, that they aren't. Not in the sense of relating to what actually exists.

I am certain that the teacher did not attempt to convince you otherwise; no serious math teacher would.

Cause and effect have been separated?

Please expand on that.

There is only so much to say. You want to mistify and I can't stop you.

 

[Ouroboros]

Depends which religion you believed in?

For me personally, it's a sense of having someone above me, beside me and in me. Guiding me, supporting me, comforting me. I have tried to think about not believing and for me it's just not possible (I should note, for me belief in God is separate to organised religion as I hope my post above explained?). When I look at kids, nature, a kind word, deed, good coming from bad etc I see Him.

What you see is the Universe, reality, world, nature, this... this where we are. That's what you see and feel.

So this, whatever this is, is all that is God.

I can't possibly imagine the wonders of the human mind ceasing to exist after death - all that we are, all that we have learned, the human brain is so complex we still don't fully understand it...yet atheism believes all that goes to dust?

You don't have the same thoughts, ideas, memories, and experiences as yesterday. Essentially, your yesterdays you is already dead and your todays you is alive and here. We're part of the cosmic dance. The dance will never cease. Any specific mental composition and/or state is always in flux (even now as I type this post).

 

[LuisDantas]

Ok let me try it this way...

Reasons in the sense you are talking, are about me changing your mind. I don't want to change your mind (I don't know where you got that idea from). I accept your reasons for YOU, I don't accept your reasons for ME. This whole thread is about ME trying to see it from YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

You actually have a Christian generally interested in if there is an argument, reasons or whatever to stop being Christian and you guys are still playing the "but we don't need to give reasons", "why aren't our reasons enough"...

I have no idea of why one would need a reason to stop being Christian.

Not having faith in Christianity would seem to be all the reason needed. What am I missing?

can't you have a general discussion without the debate, that is what I'm after really I suppose (granted I realise we are in the debate forum but that was so I could express my opinions on things).

Sure. What do you want to discuss?

I am not trying to change your mind
I am not trying to convert you
Your reasons are fine for YOU

However as yet, you haven't said anything that would stop ME being Christian.

Am I supposed to try?

You are aware that not everyone agrees with Christianity. I don't feel that I must warn you of that, nor that I should decide that Christianity isn't good enough for you.

Again, what am I missing?

My mind works differently to yours, (obviously), I don't see how you expect me to accept the same "reasons" as you?

I don't. I just disagree with you about the validity of belief in God and of Christianity.

That is only an issue if something else beyond the divergence itself makes it an issue.

Is that the case? May you give me some context of what causes the issue then?

Because it certainly isn't the simple existence of atheism and Christianity.

People are allowed to have incompatible beliefs and still be at ease with each other.

Does that make more sense?

By the way you can speculate on reasons why I believe in God, if you want.

I do, but I do not have a lot of material yet. Going by the most popular reasns, maybe you have an aesthetical preference to the idea of an existence that was meant to be; or maybe you believe that belief in God makes people focused and generally better; or perhaps you have a hard time seeing sense in an existence that lacks a promise of an afterlife.

Feel free to confirm or correct as you see fit.

Is it really that hard to have a general discussion of the reasons not to believe in God? In a positive way, not a you are wrong, you should convert way?

In this thread, talking to you, it is extremely difficult, because you are demanding me both to do it and not to do it.

Besides, as already stated, there is no need for any reason. Disbelief is quite self-justifiable, and that is taking as a premise that justification is needed at all.

I do find the whole "I just don't believe" concept strange, when an "idea" has been given. For someone who lived in the middle of nowhere who had never heard of God, I would accept "who?". However most people in the world have heard some form of "religion" in a sense.

And most don't believe in more than a couple, perhaps slightly more. Everyone seems to be entitled to disbelieve in literally thousands of different conceptions of god and of religions, yet you find it strange that some people reject the concept of god entirely.

What is there to find strange in that? It is just taking disbelief ever so slightly further than the average person.

If anything, that is less arbitrary than simply believing in God out of cultural habit as so many people do.

Take religion out the equation....a person makes a theory, hypothesis, claim. You look into the claim and make a decision, or sometimes (in the case of medications etc..) others do the research, statistical analysis and we all follow suit (sometimes). Whether people accept or don't is irrelevant, but there is still some sort of thought process there, some sort of decision on a claim which has been made.

That might perhaps apply to claims of existence or belief in God.

But it naturally doesn't to simple disbelief. Lack of belief does not need a reason.

I really don't get this "I just don't believe", you have given very valid reasons to why you don't believe in God.

Yep. But I only learned or thought of them because I happen to exist in a society that keeps asking me for explanations of why I am an atheist.

When push comes to shove, I do indeed "just don't believe". In a different culture I would not even know that I am an atheist, yet I would still be one.

I don't believe in ghosts that travel backwards in time either, but no one finds that odd, or even asks me whether I believe in them or why.

It's not about proving it, which is where I see the difference, you seem to put justification/evidence/proof and reasons (personal view) into one category. However in your mind, you will have underlying counterclaims/reasons/observations for dismissing the claim.

Actually, while I do think I can engage the matter rationally, I refuse to claim that one needs to do so. Atheism needs no justification whatsoever.

As for what you want me to do, it is still not clear what it is, or even that it is not inherently self-contradictory. Maybe I am just failing to understand you.

Put it another way, how do you expect me to not believe,

I don't. Should I? Why?

to change my way of thinking, if all I get is "I don't need to give a reason, I just don't"....that wouldn't even stand in science.

Indeed it wouldn't. That is why science does not attempt to disprove the existence of God.

Or to state it from the complementary perspective, atheism does not need scientific justification.

Of course, again, it does not need any justification at all.

I don't accept that medicine does xy and z (the claim) because I just don't, I don't need to give a reason, there is no thought behind my rejecting the hypothesis at all....

Why do you see a parallel? How does one test for the existence of God?

It seems to me that if the matter is so important to you there would be a need for you to offer some parameters of what God would be like first. Are we talking about the Abrahamic conception of God, for instance? Do you want a stance about the likelihood of existence of the conceptions of God from Deism, Pantheism and Panentheism? Or is the Christian God, or perhaps that of some specific denomination, the one you want to be justified in either belief or disbelief?

There are many other possibilities, of course. But before you demand a statement, it would be useful for you to tell us what you want it to refer to.

The way I view things there are three ways of communicating...

1) just having a general discussion, I believe x y and z...no questions, no analysing, just stating opinion

Which you claim to want, yet at the same time somehow just stating that we disbelieve in God is not enough for you.

2) having a debate...where each party attempts to change the mind of the other, expecting proof of their opinion (justification, evidence etc)

So is that what you want?

3) having a in depth discussion, I believe x y and z however questions may be asked to understand where the OTHER person is coming from, NO attempts to change the mind (unless asked to) of the other, discussing the personal reasons behind each thought, idea etc. no proof is necessary.

You are in about 2, I'm on about 3.

Actually, I am attempting, probably in vain, to follow your perspective as it jumps all over the place.

I have no idea of what you mean by 3). In all fairness, I can't say I was expected to understand it.

 

[Thief]

They are not to be contested, because they are assumed to be true before anything else is investigated. Without them, no work can be done in mathematics. At all.

"Proven ideas", however, that they aren't. Not in the sense of relating to what actually exists.

I am certain that the teacher did not attempt to convince you otherwise; no serious math teacher would.



There is only so much to say. You want to mistify and I can't stop you.

My math teacher was serious.....oh God!...she was serious!

As for science.....cause and effect ARE serious.
You cannot construct an experiment for proving if you disjoint.....
cause and effect.

With that in mind....
What caused the singularity?
Math can't go there...there will be no equation.
The laboratory won't go.....the petri dish is too small and too large at once!

No photos.

No fingerprints.

Spirit first.